Jurisprudential Approaches to Equivalent or Substantial Conformity of Sentences in Marriage Nullity Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A moins d'une interdiction - un monitum ou un vetitum - une fois qu'une confirmation de la sentence de premiere instance est obtenue, les parties peuvent contracter un nouveau mariage. La question contentieuse ese consideree comme etant jugee (res iudicata) lorsqu'elle recoit deux decisions conformes, affirmatives ou negatives. Le canon 1641,1o, etablit quil y a conformite entre deux sentences si elles impliquent les memes parties, le meme objet et le meme chef de nullite (motif). Dans une cause matrimoniale, si un marriage est juge no1 par deux sentences conformes mais qui sont basees sur deux chefs differents, il ne peut y avoir quasi res iudi rata a moins dinvoquer une conformite « equivalente » no « substantielle ». L'A. analyse quelques decrets et sentences de la Rote ainsi que des decisions de la Signature Apostolique pour en arriver a profondir la notion de conformite de sentences. Le droit et la jurisprudence distinguent entre l'identite » et la « conformite » de deux sentences. L'identite implique un accord sur tous les details de la cause. Pour avoir conformite dans une cause de mariage, il faut evidemment que les decisions portent sur les memes personnes et les memes faits. Mais il existe plus de flexibilite quant a la conformite des chefs de nullite. Une conformite formelle implique deux decisions pareilles concernant un meme chef. Une conformite substantielle resulte de deux decisions concordantes propos de deux chefs formellement distincts mais qui sont bases sur les memes faits juridiques. Le principe est fonde sur l'adage, iura novit curia il est possible que deux juges attribuent des chefs de nullite differents qu'ils considerent tous deux appropries aux memes faits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".